President Trump & the USA

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, MattP said:

Should decisions promised be implemented or not? The answer is actually obvious.

 

Of course the wall should be built - that's what the people voted for.

I'm sorry Matt but I remember you making a similar argument about leaving the Paris Accords, it wasn't a good argument then and it's not one now for exactly the same reason - if you take this thought to its logical conclusion then any decision promised up to and including any act of oppression, all-out war and genocide can be considered approvable if it is promised by a party and a plurality of people in a particular system votes for it. Is there no better logical argument that can be made?

 

And where exactly on the damage scale (physical, moral, whatever) does freedom of choice end, once those choices start affecting other people in a negative fashion?

 

10 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Interesting stuff.

 

However, such a wall being worthless in practical terms doesn't mean that it's politically worthless to Trump.

 

It would be visible (in person - or via TV screens in most cases), it would be symbolic and it would have an emotional impact on the people whose support he seeks to retain or win.

 

If the media reported that it was a massive waste of money or that it was not preventing illegal immigration (assuming they just build the wall without high-tech, labour-intensive surveillance along 2000 miles), would his target voters believe that?

Or would they be happy that Trump was visibly "preventing all those illegals getting in"?

I have no doubt such a wall would be a symbolic success, but pretty soon its failure to be effective (and it would be, for all the reasons that passage says) and the cost would, after an amount of time, invite all but the most ardent Trump supporters to see that they had spent an awful lot of money and those "illegals" would still be getting in. Denial, in this matter, would only go so far.

Edited 23 December 2018 by leicsmac

[Lionator]

I think he's finally completely lost it. Everyone aside from his family has left his administration. 404 people in less than 2 years. Mattis leaving will be the final straw. The next year will be absolutely frightening especially with insiders saying that he's itching for a war with Iran. 

[Guest MattP]

11 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry Matt but I remember you making a similar argument about leaving the Paris Accords, it wasn't a good argument then and it's not one now for exactly the same reason - if you take this thought to its logical conclusion then any decision promised up to and including any act of oppression, all-out war and genocide can be considered approvable if it is promised by a party and a plurality of people in a particular system votes for it. Is there no better logical argument that can be made?

 

And where exactly on the damage scale (physical, moral, whatever) does freedom of choice end, once those choices start affecting other people in a negative fashion?

 

I have no doubt such a wall would be a symbolic success, but pretty soon its failure to be effective (and it would be, for all the reasons that passage says) and the cost would, after an amount of time, invite all but the most ardent Trump supporters to see that they had spent an awful lot of money and those "illegals" would still be getting in. Denial, in this matter, would only go so far.

What we really need to do Mac of get rid of this democracy lark, install a democrat dictatorship and we can let the sensible people decide what is right and wrong for everyone. 

 

Then we'll obviously have a clean planet and no war. #metoo

 

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

I think he's finally completely lost it. Everyone aside from his family has left his administration. 404 people in less than 2 years. Mattis leaving will be the final straw. The next year will be absolutely frightening especially with insiders saying that he's itching for a war with Iran. 

Who is saying that who is classes as an insider?

 

Some people have been saying this line for years and it just isn't true, it's totally implausible, even the Iranian regime which is dedicated to war with Israel knows it, hence the embarrassment of Obama getting on his knees to the Ayatollah. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

What we really need to do Mac of get rid of this democracy lark, install a democrat dictatorship and we can let the sensible people decide what is right and wrong for everyone. 

 

Then we'll obviously have a clean planet and no war. #metoo

 

 

If this isn't an ad hominem attempt to play the man rather than the ball and the implication is there needs to be no other reason other than an election promise being fulfilled for something to be implemented even if that thing will be highly ineffective in practice (for all the reasons outlined in the passage I stuck up last page), then fair enough.

 

The people have spoken, let it be done - even if it will be a massive waste of time and money (and it will be).

 

Wouldn't mind an answer to the question I asked in the previous post, though.

[Charl91]

I can't believe anyone would try and defend Donald Trump's ridiculous wall .

 

What an absolutely ridiculous idea and waste of time, designed to placate morons. He may as well say "Yeah, we've built the wall now and the immigrants have stopped coming", and they'd probably believe him anyway - would save a lot of time and money.

[Jattdogg]

Does dr evil work for trump. Perhaps they can create a giant frickin laser beam wall.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

If this isn't an ad hominem attempt to play the man rather than the ball and the implication is there needs to be no other reason other than an election promise being fulfilled for something to be implemented even if that thing will be highly ineffective in practice (for all the reasons outlined in the passage I stuck up last page), then fair enough.

 

The people have spoken, let it be done - even if it will be a massive waste of time and money (and it will be).

 

Wouldn't mind an answer to the question I asked in the previous post, though.

Seriously though, if things Trump promised is ridiculous then why bother with democracy or letting people vote? 

 

Call it anything you want but it was quite clear he wanted to "build the wall" and he was then elected. Politicians should then carry out that promise - if they don't it renders it all a bit pointless.

 

I can't remember which philosopher said democracy would be a short experiment but they might be right.

[Guest MattP]

52 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

I can't believe anyone would try and defend Donald Trump's ridiculous wall .

 

What an absolutely ridiculous idea and waste of time, designed to placate morons. He may as well say "Yeah, we've built the wall now and the immigrants have stopped coming", and they'd probably believe him anyway - would save a lot of time and money.

Don't be so daft you confuse defending the idea of the wall with defending implementation of what politicians are elected on.

 

The wall is a daft idea, but that's what the American people chose under their electoral system.

[Charl91]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Don't be so daft you confuse defending the idea of the wall with defending implementation of what politicians are elected on.

 

The wall is a daft idea, but that's what the American people chose under their electoral system.

I must admit, I don't have a good understanding of American Politics, so I could have entirely the wrong end of the stick here but I believe the Senators are also elected, so if the senators block the proposal then that is also democracy at work.

 

Just because you vote for a candidate, it doesn't mean you agree with every policy, nor should all of them be implemented. If there was a president voted it on the back of a set of amazing policies, but also had one absolutely ridiculous idea (I dunno, like a ban on Pizza or something), then it would make sense to say "Well, we like most of your ideas, but let's not do that last one....".

 

In what is essentially a binary choice in American elections, both candidates will likely have crazy ideas. Seems sensible that the democratically elected Senate should temper some of the more outlandish ones. Isn't that what they're there for?

 

Again, I could have the wrong end of the stick here - I don't know a great deal about American politics. But wasting billions on a functionally useless vanity project should never be sanctioned. Maybe they need a referendum  

 

Edited 23 December 2018 by Charl91

[Captain...]

21 hours ago, MattP said:

Don't be so daft you confuse defending the idea of the wall with defending implementation of what politicians are elected on.

 

The wall is a daft idea, but that's what the American people chose under their electoral system.

They also voted for the Mexicans to pay for it. A free wall, great, paying for a wall, hmm maybe we need to consider the costs.

[lifted*fox]

I get that the American people voted for Trump and his wall was part of the offering but there's a reason why we don't let people choose everything that happens at government level because people are ****ing thick and despite thinking they know what's best, they often don't. 

 

The problem we have now is that our politicians and officials are thick as **** as well and now there is no longer any filter where we go 'oh OK, well yeah, it's not actually practical, or financially viable, or actually going to make the slightest ****ing difference - so we're going to make the RIGHT decision to knock it on the head'. 

 

Now we just go 'well the people want it so we're going to have to press on regardless, wasting time, money, etc. in the process.'

 

The world didn't get to where it has by letting everyday Joe's make all the decisions. We got to where we are (or were, before everything started turning to shit) by listening to educated specialists such as scientists and doctors and economists, etc. Unfortunately we're now apparently sick of experts so we're going to make decisions about the planet by listening to ****ing Dave down the pub who thinks climate change is made up and that vaccines don't work. 

 

Oh, what's that? We're having a huge surge in cases of previously nigh on extinct diseases because mumsnet collectively decided that vaccinations are evil? ****ING LOL. yeah, good luck with your dying kid you ****ing idiot.

 

World has gone to shit. Sigh. 

 

 

Edited 24 December 2018 by lifted*fox

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

I get that the American people voted for Trump and his wall was part of the offering but there's a reason why we don't let people choose everything that happens at government level because people are ****ing thick and despite thinking they know what's best, they often don't. 

 

The problem we have now is that our politicians and officials are thick as **** as well and now there is no longer any filter where we go 'oh OK, well yeah, it's not actually practical, or financially viable, or actually going to make the slightest ****ing difference - so we're going to make the RIGHT decision to knock it on the head'. 

 

Now we just go 'well the people want it so we're going to have to press on regardless, wasting time, money, etc. in the process.'

 

The world didn't get to where it has by letting everyday Joe's make all the decisions. We got to where we are (or were, before everything started turning to shit) by listening to educated specialists such as scientists and doctors and economists, etc. Unfortunately we're now apparently sick of experts so we're going to make decisions about the planet by listening to ****ing Dave down the pub who thinks climate change is made up and that vaccines don't work. 

 

Oh, what's that? We're having a huge surge in cases of previously nigh on extinct diseases because mumsnet collectively decided that vaccinations are evil? ****ING LOL. yeah, good luck with your dying kid you ****ing idiot.

 

World has gone to shit. Sigh. 

 

 

Yep.  We used to stand on the shoulders of giants, now we brandish pitchforks at them. 

[ithuriel]

23 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Yep.  We used to stand on the shoulders of giants, now we brandish pitchforks at them. 

Actually standing on the shoulders of giants today would be impossible due to the obesity epidemic, so blame McDonalds for our woes, always the ****in clowns that get you in the end so no wonder the world is one giant circus, plus this site needs more emoticons

[Mike Oxlong]

President Trump tells 7-year-old child it's 'marginal' to still believe in Santa Claus

 

DEIRDRE SHESGREEN | USA TODAY| 3 hours ago

 

 

 

Volunteers dressed in Christmas hats and military uniforms are taking calls from children around the world who want to know when Santa will be coming. (Dec. 24)

AP

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump questioned a 7-year-old’s belief in Santa Claus, telling the child it was “marginal” at that age to still think Father Christmas is real. 

"Are you still a believer in Santa?" Trump said to a child calling in to the federal government's official "Santa Tracker," run by the North American Aerospace Defense Command. "Because at 7, it's marginal, right?" Trump said. 

 

 

 

Potus mixing up Santa with Satan 

[urban.spaceman]

 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

 

Scary stuff. 

 

And we let these deluded idiots rule us. Which begs the question, who is more stupid - us or them?

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

Well, Christofascism (if you might forgive the expression) is scary, but IMO in this administration it isn't really surprising.

[leicsmac]

Remember a little while back there was a discussion about Jordan Peterson and misogyny?

 

Well...

 

 

Pardon the overly provocative title as he's only saying there might be unintended consequences (apparently), but even if he's only saying that it still smacks of the thought that blokes know what's best for women in terms of their own ability to have or not have a child.

[Finnegan]

"Mr Trump reportedly told Ms Pelosi she should support the wall as she was a "good Catholic" and the Vatican City had a wall."

 

 

 

lol

[Guest MattP]

Pocahontas definitely running for the Democrats then, if Trump could select their candidate she would be it (assuming we are not counting "Westchester Bronx" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a potential candidate)

 

I don't see her winning it but if the more moderate wing of the Democrat side cock this up with another Hillary Clinton don't be surprised if they do and then lose again in 2020.

Edited 3 January 2019 by MattP

[Guest MattP]

Absolutely incredible

 

 

[leicsmac]

I doubt Warren will make it through the primaries for the reasons said above - too much baggage. However, announcing first does allow her to set the tone of what's to come - if someone like Harris or Booker could run with some of her ideas the Dems may well have a decent chance IMO.

 

I know you don't like AOC that much Matt but she certainly seems up for a battle and the idea of the Green New Deal (not something that she came up with herself but something she's a big fan of) seems to have a lot of support - check it out for yourself.

[leicsmac]

Also, shamelessly stolen from elsewhere:

 

"Today is a great day - Mike Pence has to swear in both a Muslim and a gay person to Congress!"

 

He'll probably feel he needs a chemical shower afterwards.

[Guest MattP]

9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I doubt Warren will make it through the primaries for the reasons said above - too much baggage. However, announcing first does allow her to set the tone of what's to come - if someone like Harris or Booker could run with some of her ideas the Dems may well have a decent chance IMO.

 

I know you don't like AOC that much Matt but she certainly seems up for a battle and the idea of the Green New Deal (not something that she came up with herself but something she's a big fan of) seems to have a lot of support - check it out for yourself.

I will have a look.

 

I find her absolutely hilarious to be honest, she's like an American Diane Abbott but even worse, the interview she did on the firing line was amazing, I don't think I've seen such naivety ever from an elected representative.

 

The people who elected her are probably the sort who call Trump voters stupid as well.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

I will have a look.

 

I find her absolutely hilarious to be honest, she's like an American Diane Abbott but even worse, the interview she did on the firing line was amazing, I don't think I've seen such naivety ever from an elected representative.

 

The people who elected her are probably the sort who call Trump voters stupid as well.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/12/21/18144138/green-new-deal-alexandria-ocasio-cortez

 

This covers it pretty well.

 

TBH I'd take a little naivety in Congress to balance out the sheer amount of self-interest masquerading as "pragmatism" that is pervasive there right now.